Whether you are in the kitchen cooking pancakes, or a manager at work reviewing performance metrics, you try to get the right results by putting the right measurements in place. You believe that the yearly performance review can motivate workers towards certain results just as the pancake mix, two eggs, and four cups of milk can yield the right pancake mix. So why do our organizational objectives, like our pancakes, at times turn out to be a sticky mess? Why aren't we getting the results we expected? After all, people will generally act out of self interest. And tying their stock options, pay increases or promotions to the organization's performance seems to make sense, right? It sounds good, but it's more complicated than that. I believe the problem lies not in the measuring itself, but rather that we are not measuring what's meaningful. In short, people's interest is not always in alignment with the organization's interest. Why then can't we better leverage the collective knowledge, skill and experience of workers in our organizations - and become exceptional companies? Start by Recognizing that Knowledge is an Asset Let's put this discussion in context. Because we live in the knowledge Age, I'd like to begin with the premise that we are all knowledge workers. The mailman sorting and distributing mail by zip code, and the surgeon, who performs brain surgery, rely on their skills, experience and knowledge to perform their work. We must see knowledge as a critical asset, which like a seed, must be planted, nurtured and cultivated before we can taste its fruits. Some say knowledge is your last competitive advantage. That may not be far off. And while individual knowledge is important, collective knowledge is crucial. After all, knowledge is created and improved as a by-product of interaction. Foster those connections and interactions, and you really will get the "wisdom of crowds"! (See James Surowiecki's book, "The Wisdom of Crowds"). Therefore, the culture and performance management drivers in our organizations should say, "It's not what you know, but what you share that counts." It follows then that we should be able to place a quantitative and qualitative value on each person's knowledge contribution. That should make up the performance review. Unfortunately, that's where we fall short. The Power of an Idea! For example, suppose you have an idea you are willing to share and you work in an open, honest and collaborative culture. You also use Knowledge Management 2.0 tools similar to My Space, YouTube and Wikipedia that let's you easily connect to and collaborate with other team members. But instead of sharing photos, or sharing recipes, you are focused on fostering idea can be nurtured, improved and then implemented to improve processes, or better define services. Let's suppose you didn't have to worry about the appropriateness of you coming up with or advancing the idea (no turf war). And that your idea could be decided on its merits (without regard to your title, office location, or salary in the organization). In that world, the customer is invited to offer product enhancements, the partner helps improve what used to be our internal process, and our employees participate with management in strategy sessions! Does anyone doubt that such an environment wouldn't significantly lower costs and increase revenue? Oh baby...watch out! So the million dollar question is... Would you share your idea? Do you share those ideas at work today? Of course, right? Not so fast you say. You hesitate to say yes, and you are not unlike most knowledge workers at work today. Sadly, that is more an indictment on our organization's cultures, than your or my inability to share it with others. But before we look lay all the blame at our organizational structures, culture, or systems, let's take a fresh at the people who are in those structures, live within that culture, and use those systems. Who really is this knowledge worker? The Human Factor Before sharing knowledge learned from the school of hard knocks, or from sitting for hours in a hard chair at night in the college library, the knowledge worker will inevitably ask how their idea or suggestion will be received. - Why should they be willing to coach or train a younger coworker if the company will simply lay them off and hire younger talent after the fact? - Are they likely to see their idea respected, and will it go anywhere in the beaurocracy? - Will they be compensated fairly for that contribution? Does the yearly performance review know how to accurately measure its value to the organization? and - Are they able to use their gifts, talents and abilities freely without worrying if they are stepping on another's turf? Unfortunately, the knowledge worker often times has to put more effort and energy into the politics of the situation, than in freely collaborating with colleagues. Speaking of how our organizations fail knowledge workers, Stephen Covey, in "The Eighth Habit", says that managers and supervisors must begin to see people for what they truly are. They have.... A mind that says, "Use me creatively" A body that says, "Pay me fairly" A heart that says, "Treat me kindly" and A spirit that says, "Let me serve in meaningful ways" The Crowds vs. The Experts But what if we had a culture not only solicited all ideas, suggestions and feedback, but knew how to nurture and grow them? Internet trends give us glimpses how this could work in our organizations. For example, I can download a program off of Downloads.com, write a review and become a "top contributor" if enough people appreciate my review. And Amazon.com allows me to rate a new book release - just because. I can even define a term on Wikipedia (the online encyclopedia) and see it right then. True, it likely will be modified by others who contribute to its meaning. It should be that way in order for it to become more complete, accurate and useful. That's what knowledge management is about in the first place. My point is that idea fostering, strategy planning and decision making - at all levels in an organization - could be and should be - a much more vibrant and shared experience. (There wouldn't be levels to begin with, since flatter is better). The only closed room would be the bathroom, not the board room! Everyone would be able to participate, and it wouldn't require a special license, title or salary to contribute knowledge. Sounds like chaos? Good, bring it on. Chaos on Wikipedia - where anyone can edit anything - has enough critical mass of contributors to make it a dynamic, self enforcing organism. With enough eyes looking, omissions, inaccuracies and discrepancies get fixed fast. And if you provide more incentives to contributors to fix these errors, they will be fixed even faster! Critics will say that any given definition on Webster's will be more accurate than a similar definition on Wikipedia. But that's not the point. Yes, quality is important, but then again, Webster's has been around a lot longer than Wikipedia, and so some quality is going to be better. I'm not going to throw quality out the door. In fact, given time, the democratic, "wisdom of crowds" model will win out the exclusive and restricted, expert model on the quality of that same content. We must learn to see ideas, definitions - and even Geometry proofs - as something that can be improved upon. They are a work in progress, not a destination. And with that mindset, definitions, ideas and even Einstein's theories should be published so they can then more easily be opened up to scrutiny. We've done it all backwards thinking that once it's published, the debate is over! However, Webster's can't unleash the amount of content Wikipedia can produce. And since content is king, the open, participatory model is better than the expert, restricted model. Free user forums often provide more quick answers than calling the technician and paying $$$ for support. I know. I used to be that technician. And I couldn't be aware of all scenarios that produced the error, nor be able to document every problem any user on earth has experienced using that product. As a technician, you had to rely on the user-contributed forums as much as other users did. Consider the open-source Linux operating system as another proven model where open source something usually beats out proprietary anything. And experts say that Open Office rivals Microsoft Office in many ways. And it's free! If I am Microsoft, I have to be concerned that the wisdom of the crowds of users (who are also developer) may create something that my limited resources can. True, gifted engineers at Microsoft turn out great products. But can they really outdo the geeks from all over the world who are at this moment enhancing Linux, especially when Redmond engineers are outnumbered 100 or 1000-1! The secret to open source anything is the economies of scale! Work can become Fun, Engaging and Exciting again! So in the organization, who decides if my knowledge contribution has value or not? Certainly, it's not the boss who may be out of touch with my day-to-day work, nor understand and therefore not appreciate my skill set. Rather, the same crowds of ordinary users (not experts) whose collective knowledge refined the relevancy of Google's search results, and who made Wikipedia what it is today - they get to decide what value my knowledge has. In this new world of work, work is exciting, engaging and mostly an opportunity. You - and not the organization - determine your ability to excel. Nepotism, quotas or favors don't play a role in promotion or raises. The crowd does. And because everyone has equal opportunity to contribute, you take it or leave it. Work would be like a smorgasbord. You nibble at this, take a bit out of that. In this new world of work, work becomes an opportunity - not an assignment. And your ability to enhance products, improve processes, and define services is greatly amplified. The crowd determines the opportunities, and knowledge workers and you decide your future with your reputation, rating and creativity! Howard Rheingold, author of Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution, (and cited in Business Week's article, "The Power of Us"), sees a common thread in such disparate innovations as the Internet, mobile devices, and the feedback system on eBay, where buyers and sellers rate each other on each transaction. He thinks they're the underpinnings of a new economic order. Did you ever think your rating on eBay could be used to get you that new job? Well, it's happening today. If we can get to the point where the knowledge worker feels valued, is treated kindly, and trusts the organization to recognize and reward that contribution, we will see how the knowledge engine can be unleashed in our organizations. Watch out "command and control" organizations. Your ugly reign of control over the spirits, hearts and aspirations of men will soon topple. And people will be to free to liberate and contribute in much more effective ways!